Obama's Budget defeated in the Senate 99-0...Again.....

He had a dot.com bubble.

 

Thanks for correcting your erroneous citation.
Now, what's your point? All you've proven was that Bush Sr. inhereted a housing bubble caused by Reagan's reckless economic policies.

Strawman. Nobody is disputing this.

I used no strawman. You, on the other hand, have already been proven multiple times by multiple posters to be dishonest. You even have admitted to using ad hominems. Which proves that you are knowingly dishonest, not just by mistake.

Not surprising for a neo-con.

Romney wants to cap government spending at 20% of GDP. Let's assume for the sake of argument that he is actually serious about implementing this type of plan, and not just lying to get votes. And let's also assume that the big government Tea Party and Liberal Congress actually vote to implement a plan to reduce the rate of growth of government.

GDP is projected to be $19261.1 by 2016. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Table 1.12) That means that under Romney's plan, government spending will be at $3.85 trillion by 2016. Compared that to Obama's current level of $3.6 trillion. Romney is promising to increase spending from current Obama levels by the end of his term.

By voting for either of the two (I presume you're planning on voting for Romney), you're voting to increase government spending.

At least Obama is honest about the fact that he wants to increase government spending. Romney is deceitful in that he tries to hide the fact that he intends to increase spending from current Obama levels. Which is why I would root for Obama against Romney.

But at least I'm not voting for increased government spending, which is what you intend to do. The pass the buck mindset at its finest. Your transparency is becoming more evident everyday.

And what does this obvious deflection on your part have to do with your claim that Obama didn't inheret a recession? Do you still stand by that statement and intend to defend it? Or have you abandoned it? If so, please withdraw it.

 

My point is that you were wrong when you said there was no housing bubble in the late 80's.

That's not accurate.

Denying there was a bubble in the late 80's implies that you deny there was a boom/bust in housing prices.

Wrong again.

I never claimed that it did. I said that the bust was clearly shown in the housing prices chart that was given several pages earlier. This was a strawman.

Obama said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He hasn't done that. That's all that needs to be said about his honesty. But, then again, I realize Obama is still popular with the college crowd, so your support is not that surprising.

I could have been clearer in my original statement. I have since explained what I was referring to. I didn't know annoying literalists would latch on like they did. Free time better spent on taking pictures of themselves to bolster their online egos.

 

I never said any such thing. You're putting words in my mouth, which is not very surprising considering the frequency with which you engage in strawmans.

If Clinton started the housing bubble, then all you've proven was that Reagan also started that housing bubble. Which is an amazing admission from a neo-con.

Then feel free to elaborate.

I disagree with your opinion that is based on inaccurate information.

So you're denying that you admitted to using ad-hominems? That makes you a liar too.

Strawman. I never claimed that you claimed that the word "bust" was in your source.

That's because Obama is a liar. But there's one thing that he doesn't lie about - and that's about increasing spending.

I don't "support" Obama, and I'm not in college. Nice try, on both counts.

You explained nothing. You beat around the bush and dodged.

LOL! Please explain how your statement "Obama didn't inheret a recession" could be taken figuratively.

This ought to be good.

Ad hominems are the sign of a desperate debate loser.

 

You should stop lying. It makes you look weak. Explain how that is not you denying that there was a housing bubble in the late 80's.

Non-sequitur.

Pro-tip: It's dumb to quote a part of my post and tell me to "elaborate", when the very next part of my post elaborates.

Not an opinion. You said there was no housing bubble in the late 80's, yet you claimed that nobody was disputing the boom/bust that occurred. You didn't challenge the last source I put up, which states that there was indeed a housing bubble in the late 80's.
You can't have it both ways. Either admit you were mistaken when you said "Same with 1989. But we didn't have a housing bubble in 1989, did we?" or present evidence that we didn't have a housing bubble in the late 80's like I claimed.

Deflecting from your strawman.

Oh, so you were offering up a red herring instead of a strawman. It's hard to keep your logical fallacies in order. My apologies.

And he's the guy you're rooting for.

Rooting for someone is not supporting them? What an odd idea.

I've explained the differences I see in the recession Bush inherited from Clinton, and the recession that ended shortly after Obama took office.

Already did. Read the thread.

Which explains why they are a common element in your posts.

 

That wasn't a rhetorical question. I was literally asking, "We didn't have a housing bubble in 1989, did we?"

No it's not. If you claim that the most recent housing bubble started under Clinton, therefore he was responsible for it...do you admit that since the housing bubble of the late 80s/early 90s started under Reagan, therefore he was responsible for it?

OK. Your elaboration didn't look like an elaboration at all, because it was based on a misinterpretation of my original quote.

False. See above.

That's correct. I agree that you proved there was a housing bubble in the late 80s.

I'm not trying to.

Why would I do that?

Logical fallacy. One can't prove a negative.

Repetetive and already disproven. I made no strawman.

Wrong again. In order for you to prove that there was a bubble, one would expect at least that the words "bust" and "bubble" would appear in your source. But your citation of the S&L crisis didn't prove or say anywhere that there was a housing bubble. I'm not going to waste my time reading a source that doesn't even prove your claim. And when pressed to demonstrate that it proved your claim, you flaked out.

I've made no logical fallacies.

I'm not rooting for him. I said I will root for him if Paul drops out and he is going against Romney. Rooting literally means absolutely nothing. The only thing that matters is the vote. And you are voting for big government and tyranny because you hate freedom.

You claimed that I "support" Obama. This is false. I support Ron Paul.

Sure. The one Obama inhereted from Bush was far worse than the one Bush inhereted from Clinton. But that doesn't mean that Obama didn't inheret a recession.

No they're not. You're fabricating again.

 

BS. You're trying to weasel out of a false statement that you made. How cowardly.

Here's the exchange, again.

Any rational person is going to see that you were trying to refute my claim by saying there was no housing bubble in 1989. You weren't asking me if there was one or not. Pathetic.

I never said Clinton was solely responsible for the housing bubble. I believe his enforcement of the CRA was a big factor in getting "under-represented" borrowers into homes they couldn't afford, but I never said he alone was responsible for what happened. In any case, that would have zero bearing on what happened during Reagan's years.

It was a direct quote from you, actually. No interpretation required. It speaks for itself.

Nice try, see above.

Then I win.

Because that's what people do when they are corrected in an argument. They concede the point or they try and present evidence to the contrary. Of course, normal people are more honest and don't rely on intentional obtuseness and lies to backpedal out of false statements.

But one can try and refute evidence that has been given. That hasn't happened.

Those specific words do not need to be present. The second source I gave clearly referred to a "boom" in the late 80's. I mentioned that the "bust" was clearly evident in the housing price graph in the early 1990's. You have since agreed with both points, so your spinning your wheels for nothing. You mentioned that my source did not include the word "bust" when I never said that it did.

Bull.

Words have meaning, so obviously it means something.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rooting?s=t

Not false. You said you would "root for Obama", and the definition of "root" is given above.

I never disputed that.

GDP losses were already slowing down by the time Obama took office. The heaviest losses occurred while Bush was still president. Obama had the recession for 5-6 months. He should be associated more with killing the recovery than the recession that started under Bush.

One example.

 

I'm unaware of any President's budget ever being passed by Congress. All presidents submit a budget and then Congress takes up the issue and changes whatever the president submits. Hasn't that always been the case since the very first budget was passed in the United States?

 

I disagree with your opinion for reasons previously stated.

Reposting the exchange in no way refutes anything I said.

I disagree with your opinion for reasons previously stated.

Strawman. I never claimed that you claimed that Clinton was soley responsible for the housing bubble.

The basis of your logic was that the housing bubble started under Clinton, therefore Clinton was responsible for it. I was simply demonstrating the flaw in your logic, and it worked. I agree with you that Clinton was responsible (but not soley responsible) for the housing bubble.

Obviously it didn't if you misinterpreted it.

I disagree with your opinion for reasons previously stated.

LOL. All I did was ask you to provide a source to back up your baseless claim. And you did, so now we can move on. That hardly means you "win".

Not a surprising mentality coming from a neo-con though. Even when it has been demonstrated to you that there is barely a difference between Obama and Romney, you continue to flock to Romney while demonizing Obama. To me, that means the only thing you care about is making sure that your party wins.

I agree that would be the case if I ever tried to claim that there was no housing bubble in the late 80s. Unfortunately for you, that didn't happen.

Of course it hasn't. I see no need to attempt to refute the evidence.

Your first source did not prove that there was a housing bubble in the 80s. Which was the point I was making. And when this was pointed out to you, you dishonestly abandoned it. Which is evidence that you didn't even read your own source.

Nobody is disputing this.

Purely subjective. But I can see how one could interpret the decrease in prices as a "bust".

I never disagreed with them in the first place. So you're spinning your wheels for nothing.

Good for you. I never claimed that you claimed that it did.

Feel free to provide some examples then.

Sure. I will root for Obama when it comes down to Romney vs. Obama. But as it stands it's Romney Vs. Paul Vs. Obama. So I am not rooting for Obama.

Sure. I would root for Obama, implying future tense. Your claim that I am rooting for Obama is in present tense. Which is a complete fabrication on your part, which you are using not only as an ad hominem, but a false one at that. So that makes you a liar as well.

You claimed that Obama didn't inheret a recession. So yes, you did dispute that.

So what? GDP was still decreasing for the first 5-6 months Obama was in office, and unemployment for almost a full year after he took office.

How did he kill the recovery?

Out of context quote.

 

Nope.

...............

 

Your claim that we didn't have a housing bubble in 1989 has been refuted. Your attempt to spin this as you asking me a simple question is dishonest even for you, and your weasely escape attempt will be easily visible by anyone reading this argument. You've been exposed.

Parrot away. It won't change anything.

Strawman. I never claimed that you claimed that I claimed that Clinton was solely responsible for the housing bubble. And you haven't yet explained how me holding Clinton responsible for the housing bubble (CRA, Glass-Steagall, etc) directly correlates with what happened in the 80's under Reagan.

How did I misinterpret it?

More parroting.

You did no such thing.

Whereas you are rooting for Obama. That's much better.

Keep lying. It really highlights your dishonesty.

What's really sad is that you won't admit you are wrong because you don't want to lose face on this board, even when you admit you have no friends.

I'll remember this exchange the next time you create a grandstanding thread and brag about your consistency.

Of course you don't.

I brought forth another source. How is that evidence of me abandoning anything? At least I didn't lie my way out of the argument like some people choose to do.

Actually, according to the above quote, "nobody is disputing this" when I referred to a significant price drop in the early 90's. I suppose, to you, a significant price drop is somehow different from a "bust" with the semantics and word games you play. Otherwise, you're backpedaling again.

Yes, good for me.

Already did. You are free to reread my previous posts.

That's not what you said you would do.

Your support for Obama will take place if Paul is not the GOP nominee, and there's no way he can become the nominee at this point.

Sorry, I know you've been exposed as a liar, but that doesn't make me one. Paul isn't going to be the nominee, so you will write your vote in for him and root for Obama. That's what you said you would do.

This has already been addressed.

GDP was decreasing by smaller amounts during those 5 months than in 2008, when the heaviest losses were felt.

So what? The recession ended in June 2009.

By attacking private enterprise and putting an expensive entitlement on the horizon of businesses, which has hindered employment. The 5-6 trillion in additional debt hasn't helped.

Don't worry, people can follow the link to see the context of that ad-hominem attack.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post
Do you want to withdraw your dishonest and outright silly statement: "Bush inherited a recession, Obama didn't"?

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
You're claiming Bush didn't inherit a slowdown and a recession?

So now you know why which is it?

You are claiming the economy was not already slowing down before he was elected, and went into a recession within weeks of his taking office? THAT is your claim?

The facts show otherwise

Actual/Chain 2005 dollars
1999q1 5.5 3.6
1999q2 4.6 3.2
1999q3 6.8 5.2
1999q4 8.9 7.4
2000q1 4.3 1.1
2000q2 10.2 8.0
2000q3 2.8 0.3
2000q4 4.6 2.4
2001q1 1.4 (1.3)
2001q2 5.5 2.6
2001q3 0.2 (1.1)

"Layoffs mount as US economic slowdown continues
By Larry Roberts
1 November 2000

A report issued by the US Commerce Department on Friday confirmed economists' predictions that the US economy is in the midst of a slowdown, with speculation and fear developing as to how far the downturn will go. Substantial profit losses and layoffs have been reported in the auto, office equipment and US defense industries, as the dot.com sector of the economy reports record failures."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/jobs-n01.shtml

Transcript
13/6/2000
Growth expected to confirm economic slowdown

KERRY O'BRIEN: The signs of an economic slowdown are now unmistakable.

Last week saw a slump in housing finance numbers, and today a new survey revealed a collapse in business confidence.

Tomorrow, the slowdown is expected to be confirmed with figures for economic growth in the March quarter.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s139787.htm

The Economic Downturn is No Surprise
Signs were clear during expansion in the Nineties

Most key economic variables and indicators show that the U.S. economy continued to slow down in 2001. The warning signs started to appear in the last two quarters of 2000 and remained evident throughout the first two quarters of 2001.
http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2010/08/the-economic-downturn-is-no-surprise/

Economic Slowdown Gathers More Speed

November 29, 2000|By John Schmeltzer, Tribune Staff Writer.

The long-awaited slowdown in the U.S. economy is starting to take a toll on American workers who felt flush just a short time ago.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-11-29/business/0011290355_1_rail-car-thrall-railroads
Once again your fallacious statements are belied by the facts.

 

Read the thread. I didn't claim anything. I asked: "Do you want to withdraw your dishonest and outright silly statement: "Bush inherited a recession, Obama didn't"?

What you are blabbing about, and why, I'll let others try to devine.

If you want to defend the claim that Obama didn't inherit a recession, feel free.

 

That would be true if I claimed we didn't have a housing bubble in 1989 in the first place.

I disagree with your opinion for reasons previously stated.

I disagree with your opinion for reasons previously stated.

Good for you.

It doesn't now that you've changed your initial position.

Repetetive and already explained to you several times.

I disagree with your opinion for reasons previously stated.

Sure I did:

Repetetive and wrong. I am not rooting for Obama.

I disagree with your opinion for reasons previously stated.

More off-topic ramblings.

You still have yet to prove that your first source backs up your claim that there was a housing bubble in the late 80s.

Except for the dishonest debate tactics you have been proven to use.

That's true. I haven't seen anybody dispute that there was a significant price drop in the early 90s. Nor have I disputed it.

You supposed incorrectly.

I do none of these things. You're resorting to mischaracterizing my position again, which is another debate tactic you frequently use.

I disagree with your opinion.

No thanks.

Sure it is.

Baseless speculation.

I disagree with your opinion for reasons previously stated.

You've already proven otherwise.

Baseless speculation.

That's true.

I disagree with your opinion for reasons previously stated.

You could be right, or you could be wrong. You haven't provided any sources to back up these claims, so all I can assume is that this is a baseless claim.

Depends on how you define "recession".

Please elaborate.

How has the debt hindered economic growth?

 

The really disgusting part of it is that the bovine, dumbed-down American masses, who care for little more than their simple-minded amusements and what the government is going to give them will be only too happy to believe that the blame lies at someone's feet besides Obama's. When you mash all the bulls**t out of it, nearly half the people are sucking up one kind of government-provided welfare or another, and at least 25% of us are unemployed. As long as Obama keeps the "bread and circuses" coming, he can make the average, mush-brained American voter believe anything....

 

Your dishonesty is not worth debating. You were caught making a false statement and you don't even have enough integrity to admit it. It's very easy to see why nobody likes you on this forum.

 

Just because you misinterpreted a quote of mine doesn't mean that I made a false statement. An honest person would accept the fact that they've made a mistake, admit to it, and move on. You on the other hand have continuted to mischaracterize my position because you have a personal vendetta.

Given your solid track record of fallacious and dishonest debate tactics, it is not surprising. I'm not going to waste my time debating somebody who continuously engages in personal attacks.

 

You lied. It's obvious. No rational person will read the above exchange and get the impression that you were just asking me a question. You were making a statement that turned out to be false, and rather than act like "an honest person" who "would accept the fact that they've made a mistake, admit to it, and move on", you decided to lie your way out of it. You also tried to amend your previous statement about rooting for Obama.

This will be here the next time you feel the need to create a thread telling people how "consistent" you are.

 

Just because you misinterpreted a quote of mine doesn't mean that I made a false statement. An honest person would accept the fact that they've made a mistake, admit to it, and move on. You on the other hand have continuted to mischaracterize my position because you have a personal vendetta.

I did no such thing.

Good for you.